Dave Cridland wrote:
... and Keith suggestion works the other way around - the client *is* a participant, but makes everyone else invisible to it.
There is also a room configuration option to not send presence for various roles and affiliations.
It'd be interesting to see if it's worth offering control of a range of traffic, or whether we should just implement Keith's suggestion more or less as-is.One thing aimed at Keith in particular, though - I'd much rather not add things to MUC at this point. We can certainly tidy existing practise, and we can of course always extend:<x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc'> <nopresence xmlns='urn:xmpp:tmp:nopresence'/> </x>
+1 to not changing XEP-0045 -- I'd prefer to push it to Final soon, not tinker with it forever.
Heck, I wonder if certain features in MUC might be better defined in separate specifications (e.g., all the room history handling and the "request a unique room name" feature).
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
